On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 10:39:53AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> NB that such a committee does not need to be consititutionally
> established. The DPL's existing powers are sufficient to establish
> it. A big advantage to not establishing the committee
> constitutionally is that we don't need to worry so much about it
> overstepping the mark, so we do away with the checks and balances that
> hedge (for example) the TC's powers and processes. After all, as the
> DPL's delegates, the social committee can be overruled by a GR if it
> were necessary.
[...]
I don't quite get the idea of having a delegation where delegates are
voted upon. Imagine a conflict situation later - the leader can veto
their decisions, change charter, or even undelegate the whole thing.
Doesn't that contradict with the idea that those five people were elected
to do the said job? What's the point of electing people if they're not
going to be allowed to do anything that the leader doesn't like? Why not
just let the leader name them himself, and be done with it?
Also, I can already see opposition to a committee which is only elected
once, and can then change its own membership at will, while retaining
all of its the powers that the originally elected members were given.
That simply sounds evil.
I still think that we should organize a proper GR to put a basic framework
into the constitution, and then vote on the members regularly.
Social committee would deal with "mere" social matters, but we appear
to have ample precedent by now to indicate that such matters are sensitive
enough to need checks and balances.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.